« Barack Obama's Climate Change Plan | Main | As Much News As They Can, While Still Making Money »
October 09, 2007
Why Obama Can't Attack
Ben Smith is correct to put aside the question of whether Obama possesses the ruthlessness required to run for president and instead focus on his strategy, "which hinges on a message of 'unity' that is as much in line with polling and message-testing as with his personality," and which has handcuffed him into an above-the-fray vagueness.
The most remarkable political triumph of this campaign was the Clinton campaign effectively defining Barack Obama's "new politics" as "not attacking Hillary Clinton by name." Obama, of course, could have defined the new politics however he wanted, from a focus on transformative policy to a willingness to call out the DC establishment. Instead, he let the Clinton camp define his message in a way advantageous to them. And given that his campaign has not been particularly bold on policy, he's been left with neither the rhetorical room nor the substantive beliefs with which to tackle the frontrunner. It was real incompetence on the part of Obama's handlers, and it's called into question his skills and, yes, ruthlessness, as a campaigner.
October 9, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"It was real incompetence on the part of Obama's handlers..."
I've said this 400 times before, and I'll say it again.
It was not incompetence on the part of Obama's handlers. It was a strategic decision taken a year ago to not endanger the long-term Obama brand by running an actual campaign in 2008.
He won't refuse the nomination if offered it in 2008 by a grateful Party, but 2008 has never been the main point of this effot.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 9, 2007 1:31:59 PM
A lot of this sounds right, but I'm very curious to hear exactly how the Clinton campaign was responsible for defining Obama's new politics this way. Are there any key moments in the past that you'd point to where they did that?
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 9, 2007 1:32:35 PM
Isn't it possible, albeit likely a bad strategy, that the Obama camp really does believe that Americans want politics to be less predicated on ad hominem attacks? And isn't it possible that Obama believes that would be a good thing as well? In other words, isn't it possible that this isn't a strategy at all, but rather an expression of belief? I'm not saying that's a good thing; I'm just wondering if it's possible.
Posted by: anmik | Oct 9, 2007 1:50:11 PM
I tend to agree with anmik. It's not that Hillary Clinton outmaneuvered Obama into a rhetorical box, and it's not that Obama's handlers merely think that Obama should tailor his campaign this way because it's poll-tested. I think Obama really beleives his rhetoric, based on his history. He sees himself as a consensus-builder. It just so happens that this strategy is the wrong one for the year in which he's running for president.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 9, 2007 1:59:09 PM
I think candidate Obama has successfully made his case to the voters.
Clearly, the plurality of voters aren't interested.
Such is a Democracy.
Posted by: JoeCHI | Oct 9, 2007 2:07:32 PM
"I think Obama really beleives his rhetoric, based on his history."
The fact that it's Axelrod's signature is just coincidence, of course.
And the fact that it's the obvious strategy for the low-risk, long-term growth of the Obama brand is just coincidence as well.
"It just so happens that this strategy is the wrong one for the year in which he's running for president."
It's the wrong strategy in pretty much every year divisible by 4. Neither party is particularly keen on nominating folks who aren't willing to show themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with them. In 2016, Obama will be running with quite a different strategy now that he's done with rolling himself out.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 9, 2007 2:20:02 PM
I think the thing here is that "incompetence" is a bit unfair; I've thought all along that the problem with Obama - and to some extent with Edwards - is a combination of unfamiliarity and naivete. Both campaigns are led by candidates whose experience at this level is not vast, and the teams they've assembled are in some ways very very green. It was, I think an honest, somewhat amateur error to let the Clinton campaign define Obama's "new paradigm" as essentially an emphasis on niceness that precluded saying tough things, and it was lack of experience that led them to the mistake of not seeing that that they needed to handle this better, and sooner. Now, I too fear it's a bit late to fix what ails them. But by the same token, I don't think it's impossible - a major staff shakeup, and a few daring positions, combined with some tough talk about Clinton (except I'd find a new issue besides Iraq votes and PAC money - those are dead horses,= for Obama, in many ways), could reverse things. Just my sense of things.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 9, 2007 2:31:43 PM
In 2016, Obama will be running with quite a different strategy now that he's done with rolling himself out.
Well, you have the benefit of being able to make a prediction so far in the future that I doubt either of us will be hanging around on Ezra's weblog comments to evaluate the accuracy of your prediction.
If there's anything in Obama's background that you think convinces you that "deep inside" he's actually a partisan brawler just biding his time, tell us. I don't care for your rhetorical speculations.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 9, 2007 2:32:39 PM
"If there's anything in Obama's background that you think convinces you that "deep inside" he's actually a partisan brawler just biding his time, tell us. I don't care for your rhetorical speculations."
Fair enough. It's perfectly possible that "deep inside" Obama is a latter day Paul Simon or Paul Tsongas or Bill Bradley. But I just don't think so.
Unlike those folks, I think Obama actually wants to take the WH at some point. And if so, he'll follow the script and run the 2016 race in a very different manner than he ran in 2008, much like Al Gore and John Edwards ran their second races very differently than they ran their first introductory races.
To introduce yourself and maintain your long-term national approval ratings, you run outside your party. To win a nomination, you run of your party. That's the difference between an introductory bid and a serious bid.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 9, 2007 2:45:17 PM
Fair enough. It's perfectly possible that "deep inside" Obama is a latter day Paul Simon or Paul Tsongas or Bill Bradley. But I just don't think so.
Unlike those folks, I think Obama actually wants to take the WH at some point.
Is this the Green Lantern theory of electoral politics ("if someone loses, it's always because they didn't have the will to win") or do you have a source saying that Tsongas and Bradley weren't really trying to win? Link, quote, editorial by an insider... The simplest explanation has seemed to me that Obama (for whatever reason) wants to be president, but has noticed that people with long careers in Congress have not done well in presidential races in recent decades, so it's now or never. Your prediction is more detailed and ambitious than my explanation, but it's no better sourced.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 9, 2007 3:03:19 PM
Isn't it possible, albeit likely a bad strategy, that the Obama camp really does believe that Americans want politics to be less predicated on ad hominem attacks?
Yes, but it doesn't have much to do with the question of why he says "some people have made bad decisions on Iraq" as opposed to "Hillary Clinton has made bad decisions on Iraq," since the latter is not an ad hominem attack.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 9, 2007 3:10:43 PM
"Is this the Green Lantern theory of electoral politics ("if someone loses, it's always because they didn't have the will to win")"
No. Both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are running campaigns to win in 2008, but they will not end up both being co-nominees. Dick Gephardt in 1988 and Gary Hart in 1984 were running campaigns to win, but didn't.
You don't always win just because you're trying to win. But since plurality nominees became impossible after the post-1980 rules changes, it's become incredibly difficult to win if you're not willing to firmly stand with the Party. Personal rectitude campaigns simply can't get you to a majority of the Party, absent some catastrophe befalling all the other nominatable candidates in the field.
But my larger point is that I don't think any of this is a surprise to Team Obama.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 9, 2007 3:39:17 PM
> Unlike those folks, I think Obama actually
> wants to take the WH at some point. And if
> so, he'll follow the script and run the 2016
> race
Easy enough theory to test - if so, he will run for Governor of Illinois, win, win re-election, then start the next Presidential campaign.
Which is what he should have done this time, although leaving the Senate so soon might have hurt him.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Oct 9, 2007 3:41:17 PM
"Easy enough theory to test - if so, he will run for Governor of Illinois, win, win re-election, then start the next Presidential campaign."
I continue to be of the opinion that if HRC gets cut in the early states, she'll bleed like a hemophiliac. And if so, I'd expect Edwards to be the nominee and Obama to run in 2016 from the Naval Observatory.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 9, 2007 3:50:49 PM
There is another issue that is overlooked. Obama's message of unity is a huge turnoff for a lot of Democrats.
Obama is saying we have bitter divisions in this country and both parties are to blame. He seems to be saying "pox on both houses". He is presenting herself as someone above party instead of passionately defending Democratic party principles and drawing sharp contrasts with the GOP. He is basically running as an independent.
Posted by: MikeB | Oct 9, 2007 3:53:41 PM
"Easy enough theory to test - if so, he will run for Governor of Illinois, win, win re-election, then start the next Presidential campaign."
By that time he will have a record, a record in high office. There is no guarantee the record will be a good one.
Part of Obama's current appeal is that he is a blank slate. People project onto him whatever they want.
After a record in statewide office he will lose the blank slate advantage. He will have made many difficult decisions, some unpopular, some that didn't turn out well.
Posted by: MikeB | Oct 9, 2007 4:00:50 PM
At what point in this do the voters take responsibility for the way I system works? Same results, different day. Just a meta observation.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 9, 2007 4:17:29 PM
Ezra's post is totally wrong, as pointed out by a number of other commentators above me. Apparently the only person that agrees with him is... weboy. Make of that what you will.
Anyways, it's funny to me how Obama is already being written off. Maybe after the race is over we can engage in postmortum analysis about "what went wrong," but right now it's a little premature don't you think? He could still well win.
Posted by: Korha | Oct 9, 2007 4:18:40 PM
"right now it's a little premature don't you think? He could still well win."
He's a perfectly nominatable candidate, and he could indeed still win.
But strategic choices taken many months ago have left him in a position where his destiny this year is utterly out of his hands.
In other words, he can win the nomination only if Edwards and Clinton collide in a very specific way, thus leaving the road open to him. But he can't overtake anyone under his own power.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 9, 2007 4:40:04 PM
Korha, I don't agree with Ezra on the "incompetence" charge, and I'd say a number of people in the comments have been wondering about the "ruthlessness" question that's the main topic of the post. Myself, I think Obama has the ruthlessness, he just hasn't used it. But I don't think anyone's said Ezra's completely right... or completely wrong. And I think it would be ignoring the obvious to say that something isn't quite working in the Obama campaign.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 9, 2007 5:05:38 PM
Am I missing something? When did Clinton define his campaign? Seems to me this has been the way he's ALWAYS campaigned (Senate race, Illinois Senate Race, Congressional Race). It is all consistent with who he is and how he believes he's effective (See, e.g., Memories of My Father, and Audacity of Hope). Sorry Ezra and all, I'm not buying this one. He may not win because he's not pandering to the base or showing sufficient deference to the machine, but that's not because he's let Clinton define him, it's how he's always defined himself.
Posted by: Keith | Oct 9, 2007 5:27:44 PM
I think Petey is on the mark...except on the Edwards/Obama VP spot thing...from an earlier post
"Obama seems to be fishing in different waters. I think he is recalibrating his position and thinking about future moves...and I do think he's sharp enough to figure neither Hill & Bill or Edwards would want him in the VP spot.
In the Hill & Bill nomination, their are quite a few negatives:
1] Who would want to Hill's number two man...I mean can anybody see Bill [the comeback kid] sharing the spotlight...I'll believe when I see it.
2] The Demographics are wrong, Hill's base is white woman...and that base would go for a Afro-American male in the VP slot, but Obama has a shaky hold on what should be his base. And Obama's base is not as likely to be enamored by Obama taking second place to the wife of former president tagged to a husband who will be showing Obama up from day one. I mean, it does seem pretty humilating, I can't see black folks being thrilled with that one.
With Edwards their is one single negative:
Edwards can't get the tiny, but important, progressive [relatively] white male vote in the border states with Obama. One reason is race, but the other is that Obama's rhetoric has been calibrated to reassure middle-class whites and that is out of tune with Edwards song and won't play well under the hot lights.
Murdoch's agent provocateurs...in combination with Hill & Bill's friends in the press have made Obama into a contender in order to blunt a challenge by Edwards to Hillary...and it has worked to perfection. Obama has effectively split the Anti-Hill & Bill forces. And while I depise Hill & Bill for their destruction of the progressive movement within the Democratic party, I do respect the cold Machivellian manner with which the princess plays the royal court.
With Murdoch, the dark prince at her side, look for a ruthless Queen upon her coronation, one who will put aside her thoughts of revenge for the thirst of power.
Welcome to medieval America...oh...just one question...doesn't the dark prince always betray the Queen?"
Posted by: S Brennan | Oct 9, 2007 5:28:50 PM
What's Obama's hurry? None. He can run again in 8, 16, 24 years even. It's actually refreshing to see a campaign like his. If he can successfully build a movement, and remain visible somewhat frequently in that movement for the next dozen years he's guaranteed a nomination in the future.
Posted by: Fred | Oct 9, 2007 6:50:31 PM
"And I think it would be ignoring the obvious to say that something isn't quite working in the Obama campaign."
Unless, as stated upthread, that winning the '08 nomination was a low priority item for them, and the campaign is working pretty much as intended.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 9, 2007 6:52:46 PM
I get the feeling he's trying to be "a lover, not a fighter". I don't know if that's really who he is, or just what he wants to sell.
It's exactly not what we need now--or ever. We need the damage stopped, the Exec. branch cleaned out, and the good stuff to be done--for us. Give me Edwards--the only one fighting, and not simply waiting for a coronation like Hillary and Obama.
Posted by: amberglow | Oct 9, 2007 7:27:17 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
